AMENPER”President Barack Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it — and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it — that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker” These are not my words, these are the words of Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey. Napolitano is known as a well versed constitutional scholar.

In this article the former judge mentions the number of times that this president has broken the rule of law.

“Obama has done these things with a cool indifference and he has threatened to continue to do so until the pressure builds on his political opponents to see things his way”, says Napolitano.

I know that an impeachment makes the U.S.A. look bad internationally, more so if the impeached is the first black president of the United States. But the constitution is above all considerations, and the Framers of the constitution give us a remedy — removal from office. It is the remaining constitutional means to save the freedoms the Constitution was intended to guarantee.

I could not agree more with judge Napolitano, below you will find the whole article.

The only constitutional remedy left: Impeachment

By Andrew P. Napolitano

It has been well established under the Constitution and throughout our history that the president’s job as the chief federal law enforcement officer permits him to put his ideological stamp on the nature of the work done by the executive branch. The courts have characterized this stamp as “discretion.”

Thus, when exercising their discretion, some presidents veer toward authority, others toward freedom. The president has discretion to adapt law enforcement to the needs of the times and to his reading of the wishes of the American people. Yet that discretion has a serious and mandatory guiding light — namely, that the president will do so faithfully.

The word “faithfully” appears in the oath of office that is administered to every president. The reason for its use is to assure Americans that their wishes for government behavior, as manifested in written law, would be carried out even if the president personally disagrees with the laws he swore to enforce.

President Barack Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it — and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it — that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker.

Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the president has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor. He has permitted:

unconstitutional and unbridled spying on all Americans all the time

illegal aliens to remain here and continue to break the law, even instructing them on how to get away with it

his Department of Veterans Affairs to so neglect patients in government hospitals that many of them died and it even destroyed records to hide its misdeeds

his Internal Revenue Service to enforce the law more heavily against his political opponents than against his friends and to destroy government computer records in order to hide its misdeeds

his friends to be relieved of the burdens of timely compliance with ObamaCare and burdened his enemies with tortured interpretations of that law — even interpretations that were rejected by the very Congress that enacted the law and interpretations that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Obama has done these things with a cool indifference and he has threatened to continue to do so until the pressure builds on his political opponents to see things his way.

The Framers could not have intended a president so devoid of fidelity to the rule of law that it is nearly impossible to distinguish between incompetence and lawlessness. But the Framers did give us a remedy — removal from office. It is the remaining constitutional means to save the freedoms the Constitution was intended to guarantee.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

Jimmy Carter pushes US to recognize Hamas, slams Israel in op-ed.

Liberals love them some terrorists.Former President Jimmy Carter once again is getting way out in front of the U.S. government on the Middle East, co-authoring an op-ed in which he calls for Washington to recognize designated terror group Hamas as a legitimate “political actor” — while blasting Israel for its military campaign in the Gaza Strip. The scathing column on ForeignPolicy.com was written by Carter and Ireland’s former president Mary Robinson.

The article called the current conflict a “humanitarian catastrophe,” and while acknowledging Hamas’ “indiscriminate targeting” of Israelis, focused its criticism on Israel.

“There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war,” they wrote. “Israeli bombs, missiles, and artillery have pulverized large parts of Gaza, including thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals.”

Did she just re-ignite the birth certificate controversy?

A clip from a recent on-air exchange between MSNBC correspondents is creating the impression that at least someone at the left-leaning news network has doubts about the authenticity of Barack Obama’sBIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Host Joy Reid began the conversation regarding an ongoing conference in Africa, noting that the “White House is clearly, I would assume, hoping that this will be part of the president’s legacy, given his background.”

Chris Jansing took the connection between Obama and Africa a sizable step further, apparently siding with a large number of Americans who believe he was born on that continent.

She cited “the fact that he’s from Kenya and the fact that when he was elected there were expectations on the African continent that he would do great things for them” as a reason the summit might hold significance with him.

Later in thePROGRAM, however, after she was apparently chided off-camera, Jansing walked back her earlier statement.

“Obviously, to clarify, I misspoke at the top before,” she said. “It is obviously the president’s father who is from Kenya and you clarified that.”

She concluded by asserted that Obama “has a real connection and there has been great expectation that great things can happen with this president and the African continent.”

While Obama is touted as a veritable expert on African relations, anaddressby Joe Biden at the summit this week included the latest in a series of flubs by the gaffe-prone vice president. Speaking about the potentially bright economic future available to the continent, he referenced the nonexistent “nation of Africa.”

After Barack Obama, it will be hard for the left to field apresidentialcandidate who will carry the banner of destructive progressivism with such ardor—an individual whose views are so at odds with everything that made America great. With Obama finally out of office in 2016, who could be worse? Unfortunately, the Democrat Party has a deepWELLof radical leftists to choose from. Two of the worst possible presidential candidates—meaning two of the Democrats’ favorites—are Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren. As bad asPresidentObama has been—and he has been about as bad as presidents get—either of these potential candidates could give him a run for his money in tearing down America.

For a while it looked like the candidate to beat would be Hillary Clinton, but then it looked that way in 2008 too. Her leftwing, destructive progressivism credentials are impeccable. After all, Hillary is an icon of the far left and the reigning poster girl for the NationalORGANIZATIONfor Women (NOW). But Hillary has a problem, and I don’t mean Bill—although he is hardly an asset to her. The problem referred to here is the blood feud between the Clintons and the Obamas. The Obama’s and Clinton’s have never gotten along very well. In fact, they despise each other, and the animosity between them developed long before Hillary started distancing herself from Obama’s mounting failures.

Bill Clinton is out of the presidency, but not gone from the political scene. In between exploiting his presidency by charging exorbitant fees for making lame speeches, Bill Clinton is engaged in a death struggle—politically speaking—for control of the Democrat Party. His foe in this struggle is none other than Barack Obama. Because of this feud asWELLas other baggage she carries, Hillary may not be the anointed candidate of Democrats after all. One of her biggest problems is that she needs to distance herself from President Obama on such issues as Benghazi, Syria, the economy, IRS bullying, NAS snooping, Crimea, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the Marine being held in a Mexican jail, children at the Border, the Obama vs. Putin wimp factor, and a host of other issues. But in trying to distance herself from all that has made Obama a failed president, she risks alienating Obama’s loyal base of leftwing radicals who would still vote for him even if he turned out to be a closet Ayatollah.

While people who love America understandably fear the impending candidacy of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama is working behind the scenes to produce an alternative candidate—one who is not distancing herself from theObama administrationand one who may be Obama’s equal when it comes to destructive progressivism. That potential presidential candidate is Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren’s destructive progressivism credentials are such that she could go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama on most liberal issues without giving much ground. She is an anti-business, anti-military, anti-American environmental radical who thinks people earning minimum wage should be paid as much as the owners of the businesses that employ them.

Warren also thinks college students should be able to go to school free of charge, and does not seem to understand that free of charge means that you and I will have to pay for theirEDUCATION. She also pushes that tired old line about paying women who work in low-demand jobs as much as men who work in high-demand jobs (the old secretary vs. truck driver argument), and the law of supply-and-demand be damned. Of course Warren is pro-abortion, pro-socialism, and anti-Christianity. In truth, she would make a great president—of France.

After eight years of Barack Obama, America cannot take another so-called progressive in the White House whose views are at least as destructive as Obama’s have been. The America envisioned by the Founders will not survive with Hillary or Elizabeth as president. I would like to think Americans have better sense than to elect either of these leftists as president, but those same Americans elected Barack Obama—not once but twice. God help us. Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/hillary-elizabeth-anyone-worse/#GkpOvg3LQs0ByGcs.99

IMMIGRATION ALERT

IRMENDE MENDEZ: Alguien sabe si esto es

cierto: Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for

supporting Obama’s executive order

granting amnesty to illegal aliens!

Iraida,

By a vote of 216-192, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5272, which declared that the President of the United States should not issue any more work permits to illegal aliens without the consent of Congress. Your Congressman was one of the 192 members who voted to ALLOW Obama to keep this power to unilaterally grant amnesty without the approval of Congress.

Just click the button below, and you can send our pre-filled message condemning Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for voting no on this bill!

Message Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen!

Here at NumbersUSA, we have a proven system that allows you to easily send our pre-filled messages (faxes/petitions) to your elected officials.

ALSO, YOU CAN VISIT YOURACTION BOARDAT ANY TIME AND CHECK FOR NEW ACTION OPPORTUNITIES.

NumbersUSA Action is the nation’s largest grassroots immigration-reduction organization with more than one million participants in all 435 congressional districts. Members mobilize to persuade public officials to support immigration policies that protect all Americans from losing wages, taxes, individual freedoms, quality of life, and access to nature due to excessive immigration numbers that indiscriminately enlarge the U.S. population, the labor force and government costs.

A Flood of Teenage Immigrants? The DHS’s Solution: ID Card Compliance

You seem to have little to say about the illegal immigration issue unfolding on our southern border. Do you have any information why this is occurring now? Do you have any thoughts on how it should be dealt with and why?

First, I invoke Franklin Roosevelt’s law of politics: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

Second, the story has two halves: outside the USA and inside. We need to consider both in order to make sense of either.

Fourth, the media are focusing on a small component of this immigration this year: immigration from Central America. It’s up this year to about204,000. With three months to go until the end of fiscal 2014, this might hit 250,000.

There is not a word from the Border Patrol on immigration from Mexico in FY 2014. There is also not a word on former immigrants from Mexico who are returning to Mexico. This has increased since 2000. Net immigration from Mexico has beenclose to zero for a decade.

Fifth, the lure is the hope of amnesty. If they can get on this side of the Mexican border, they may be allowed to stay.

My subscriber wants to know “Why now?” I’ll tell you why now.

INSIDE THE USA

I cite the Wikipedia article on The REAL ID Act. It’s the law. It has been for nine years.

The REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. 109–13, 119 Stat. 302, enacted May 11, 2005, was an Act of Congress that modified U.S. federal law pertaining toSECURITY, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver’s licenses and identification (ID) cards, as well as various immigration issues pertaining to terrorism.